Applicant attraction to flexible work arrangements: Separating the influence of flextime and flexplace

Abstract

Flexible work arrangements (FWAs) are widely implemented for organizational purposes including recruitment. Theoretically, these arrangements alter temporal and physical boundaries around work. However, the time and place dimensions are frequently confounded in research, making the separate and joint effect of each on various outcomes unclear. To determine the relative importance of FWA dimensions as anticipated resources, this study experimentally manipulates discretion over when (flextime) and where (flexplace) one is expected to work on anticipated organizational support (AOS) and organization attraction. Prospective employees (N = 130) participated in a 3 × 3 within‐subject experiment in which they rated nine hypothetical organizations that varied in flextime and flexplace. Results indicated main effects for both flextime and flexplace on both AOS and organization attraction with flextime having the stronger impact. Although the combination of a high level of both flextime and flexplace yielded the highest ratings of AOS and organization attraction, the interaction between flextime and flexplace was not statistically significant, suggesting flextime and flexplace have independent effects on recruitment outcomes. Relationships between flextime and flexplace and organizational attraction were slightly stronger for individuals who prefer to integrate their work and non‐work roles. Managerial implications and directions for future research are discussed.Practitioner points Potential applicants rate flextime without a required core time as significantly more supportive and attractive than flextime with core time. Potential applicants rate flextime with a required core time as significantly more supportive and attractive than no flextime. Potential applicants rate working from home 2 to 3 days a week as significantly more supportive and attractive than not being able to work from home at all. The supportiveness and attractiveness of flextime does not depend on the supportiveness or attractiveness of flexplace or vice versa.